Question for Open Carriers...

This is a discussion on Question for Open Carriers... within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ericb327
The thread title says question for open carriers! I think that makes it about OC!
But that takes the fun out ...

It could be argued that had he been open carrying the attacker may have chosen a different target, or worst case - the outcome would have been the same.

A study was done and found that you are 60% less likely to be attacked if the person knows you are carrying... Considering the chances are already pretty low, adding another 60% less of a chance to that is OK in my book.

We will never know how many instances open carry prevents, but there have been cases where it has prevented a crime.

We do know that concealed carry prevents 0.

We will also never know how many times an open carrier becomes 'the target' simply because they are open carrying.

It could be argued that had he been open carrying the attacker may have chosen a different target, or worst case - the outcome would have been the same.

A study was done and found that you are 60% less likely to be attacked if the person knows you are carrying... Considering the chances are already pretty low, adding another 60% less of a chance to that is OK in my book.

We will never know how many instances open carry prevents, but there have been cases where it has prevented a crime.

We do know that concealed carry prevents 0.

We will also never know how many times an open carrier becomes 'the target' simply because they are open carrying.

I am a big proponent of OC but the example you cite is a very bad one. Whether he had a gun or not, CC or OC, he would have been robbed. He was incapcitated from getting hit. If he was OC'ing they would have taken his gun also

I already said that, my point is exactly what you stated - it didn't matter that if it was open or concealed, it was also just a quick example of a recent and local report not the be all end all example.

Also, this is more likely the scenario rather than having 30 seconds to prepare, assess the situation, and act out your plan.

James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”

From the study...

Given these results, it is not surprising that the major motive acknowledged for acquiring and carrying guns was self-protection. Concerning their most recently owned handgun, 58 percent of those who had ever owned a handgun cited "self-protection" as a very important reason for the acquisition; "to use in my crimes" was very important to only 28 percent. ("Self-protection," in this context at least must be interpreted with some caution. Part of it no doubt implies protection against being preyed upon or continually harassed by other criminals who are better armed. Another part implies protection against armed victims, against the police, and against the prospects of apprehension during a crime.)

In this connection, about two-fifths of the sample had at some time in their careers encountered an armed victim; an equivalent percentage had at some time decided not to commit a crime because they had reason to suspect that the intended victim was armed. (These findings, too, must be interpreted with caution. Although the survey did not ask who those "intended victims" were, it is likely that many would be the felons' own "colleagues," since men of the sort studied in this research are clearly not above preying upon one another.)

It only takes one time for it to go from a "could" to a "did." And then if it does your life, the lives of friends and loved one who you carry to protect, and the lives of innocent bystander are in danger. There is a reason why cops carry in level 2 and level 3 holsters.

LEOs primarily use retention because they could, and should, expect to go hands-on in the performance of their daily duties. It only takes "one time" for anything to go wrong--a lightning strike, t-boned in an intersection, etc.--and nothing can protect one from everything. I'll take my off of someone attempting to take my firearm over a fumbled mis-draw.

I am a big proponent of OC but the example you cite is a very bad one. Whether he had a gun or not, CC or OC, he would have been robbed. He was incapcitated from getting hit. If he was OC'ing they would have taken his gun also

And the point is: it can happen to OC'ers and CC'ers alike, whether using retention holsters or not, so the argument is really moot. Use what you refer in the manner you prefer and be effective with it.

I think that might be true. Yesterday, I was at Dollar Tree in Hudson, WI and there was a certain vehicle that kept parking near mine and then driving away. I watched with my 4 year old as he did it over and over. Finally, I handed the kid off to the wife and stepped outside and waited for the inevitable. The individual driving the minivan with Minnesota plates parked behind my SUV and started casing it. I stepped out from behind the wall like I was leaving the store and proceeded to unlock and enter my vehicle just to see what he would do. He started to advance on me while reaching into his front pocket of his NC Tarheels hoodie and stopped dead in his tracks and backed off slowly. I am completely sure that he noticed my little buddy on my hip and decided it wasn't a good idea. Point is, I was doing laundry and I would have preferred to CC due to the weather allowing me to wear my new Army hoodie I got online but all I had was a tighter pair of jeans so I slapped on the cheap Crossman holster and OC'd. If he hadn't known I was armed I know he would have wanted a fight and at that distance it's possible I would have been cut.

Referring to the OP, retention is a necessity for me. I know that not all people use a retention holster and if it works for them then fine! But honestly...my $6 bb gun holster (not my only holster) has a retention strap so it's not that difficult for everyone to find one. I have seen one very bad example of open carrying without retention: gun wobbling, headphones blasting, completely oblivious to his surroundings... do what you like, but there is absolutely no excuse for a lost weapon. Like in Hunter Safety class, SAFETY FIRST.

Thanks

Thanks for the input. I learned a couple things I hadn't thought of before...

First... those who questioned the frequency of civilians being disarmed seem to be right. I've never heard of it. LEO yes, civilians no. Still like many pointed out its not to hard to imagine it happening.

Second... interesting point relative to the natural retention capability of a fwd canted holster against an attack from the rear. I never thought about that but it seems true. Probably even more so for handguns with normal barrel length.

I agree that retention is 'carry issue'. I have seen 'sloppy concealers' (one who's a friend of mine) who are actually more at risk because they carry further to the rear. (My friend has since switched to a Kimber Solo to solve his 'issue')

I also agree that SA is more important than mechanical retention or anything else for that matter. If you get disabled by a blow to the head it's not going to matter what the retention level your holster has.

So enough with this agreeing. While I'm sure that OC would deter many types of assaults is it not logical that OC would tend to necessitate an ambush? As to the 'target or not' question I would bet that a fine pistol is pretty high up on the list of 'desirable tools of the trade' among predator type criminals. These are important considerations because no one can react quickly enough to an assault at close quarters (such as in line to enter a theater) to keep some one from disabling you (like the case sited in Minnesota) or from just grabbing and running before you realized what happened. The position that you carry in certainly would help but even from the front if someone decides to go for your gun they are going to have it before your brain processes the assault and makes a decision act.

Sorry, I was 2% off I guess my e-cred is now trashed. Other sources do quote it as 60% however, I don't have the book handy to verify which is correct.

Posted using Tapatalk 2

In this connection, about two-fifths of the sample had at some time in their careers encountered an armed victim; an equivalent percentage had at some time decided not to commit a crime because they had reason to suspect that the intended victim was armed. (These findings, too, must be interpreted with caution. Although the survey did not ask who those "intended victims" were, it is likely that many would be the felons' own "colleagues," since men of the sort studied in this research are clearly not above preying upon one another.)

Sorry, but its not about your e-cred, its about reading. two fifths is not 60 percent.

Sorry, but its not about your e-cred, its about reading. two fifths is not 60 percent.

Well, you're not proving anything I wrote as being incorrect. 2/5 is 40%, which is the number who have encountered an armed citizen. You are quoting a different statistic altogether.

What I mentioned is from this paragraph:

Originally Posted by US. Dept. of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America

“The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, Research Report” stated that 60% of felons they surveyed agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun”; 74% agreed with the statement “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime”; and finally, 57% of felons agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into police.”

Thanks for the input. I learned a couple things I hadn't thought of before...

First... those who questioned the frequency of civilians being disarmed seem to be right. I've never heard of it. LEO yes, civilians no. Still like many pointed out its not to hard to imagine it happening.

Second... interesting point relative to the natural retention capability of a fwd canted holster against an attack from the rear. I never thought about that but it seems true. Probably even more so for handguns with normal barrel length.

I agree that retention is 'carry issue'. I have seen 'sloppy concealers' (one who's a friend of mine) who are actually more at risk because they carry further to the rear. (My friend has since switched to a Kimber Solo to solve his 'issue')

I also agree that SA is more important than mechanical retention or anything else for that matter. If you get disabled by a blow to the head it's not going to matter what the retention level your holster has.

So enough with this agreeing. While I'm sure that OC would deter many types of assaults is it not logical that OC would tend to necessitate an ambush? As to the 'target or not' question I would bet that a fine pistol is pretty high up on the list of 'desirable tools of the trade' among predator type criminals. These are important considerations because no one can react quickly enough to an assault at close quarters (such as in line to enter a theater) to keep some one from disabling you (like the case sited in Minnesota) or from just grabbing and running before you realized what happened. The position that you carry in certainly would help but even from the front if someone decides to go for your gun they are going to have it before your brain processes the assault and makes a decision act.